Recent proposals about Q

[Ben C. Smith]

I think Garrow states that because Luke has the positive Golden Rule and the Didache has the negative form of it, Luke is therefore dependant on the Didache.

Is his argument that simplistic here? I recall it being more nuanced than that.

[Michael BG]

Having slept on the problem I think perhaps I have asked the wrong questions. Perhaps I should not be so quick to talk of dependency of the Didache on Luke. Perhaps I should consider the Didache having access to the Q material independently of both Luke and Matthew.

If (ἐπηρεαζόντων) ones-slandering is the original version it might well be possible for the authors of Matthew and the Didache to change it independently to (διωκόντων) ones-persecuting. I couldn't find anything which might explain the difference because both are legitimate translations of an Aramaic word.

Matthew Black in An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts suggests that both the begging saying (Lk 6:30a) and the taking away saying (Lk 6:30b) go back to an Aramaic play on the words sheal and sheqal. It is therefore possible that Luke has the original version and the author of the Didache has changed his version from the original without being influenced by Matthew. From reading Black it seems possible that both Matthew's verse 42 and Luke's verse 34 were in the original.

With regard to the change from Matthew’s (μισθὸν) wages (Mt 5::46a) to Luke's (6:32a) and the Didache’s (1:3e) (χάρις) grace. I think it is possible for both the authors of Luke and the Didache to have independently changed wages to grace.

I think Garrow states that because Luke has the positive Golden Rule and the Didache has the negative form of it, Luke is therefore dependant on the Didache.

Is his argument that simplistic here? I recall it being more nuanced than that.

I expect it is very much a simplification considering I had to remember what Garrow said, rather than see it written down in front of me.